Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Dimensio
I am discounting what you present as evidence because by your own admission the evidence is meaningless,...

It is not meaningless and I never admitted such a thing. Where did I say my evidence is meaningless? If I thought it was meaningless, I wouldn't have presented it.

So, then what goes on in science labs is meaningless, too, because then all that order and complexity of a scientific experiment is just the result of random electrical impulses firing between synapses in a scientists brain complied with the random actions of said scientist. If order and complexity are not evidence of intelligence, than nothing in this world is and it is all meaninglessness and none of it can be trusted.

You are using selected examples of intelligent interaction in some cases to assert that intelligent interaction is present in all cases, without providing any reason to accept that it must be the case.

Again, not true. The reasons to accept that intelligent action is behind ALL order is because it's logical to presume so from precedent set by what we do know. It doesn't make sense to presume that there is none when there is no basis at all for coming to that conclusion.

645 posted on 06/18/2006 2:55:17 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies ]


To: metmom
So, then what goes on in science labs is meaningless, too, because then all that order and complexity of a scientific experiment is just the result of random electrical impulses firing between synapses in a scientists brain complied with the random actions of said scientist.

Your statement is a non-sequitur. I have never claimed that mental functions are "random electrical impulses".

Again, not true. The reasons to accept that intelligent action is behind ALL order is because it's logical to presume so from precedent set by what we do know.

But, as you have stated previously, there is no means of "knowing" otherwise. You yourself have stated that it is impossible to know that there is no undetected design involved in a process where no detectable design is involved.

If you believe that your explanation is scientific and valid, then please provide a hypothetical observation that, if made, would show that your claim is false.
646 posted on 06/18/2006 4:17:42 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson